tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 20, 2015 12:30am-2:31am EDT
do thank you. >> commissioner howard we have any credibility to other countries like china or iran if we take large steps in that direction without overreaching? imitative is extreme trouble with the passage of the item with neutrality in a sense of wrong message internationally when i went both to spade recently and south korea they're interested in in gauging with issues of the broadband there would like to get as much involvement as they can obviously they have greater government control so it is of bifurcated message that we should not do it here or
there now we say we will do some things and regulated without acceptable practice which i think is a terrible message. >> what are your thoughts? >> i agree with the commissioner play agree with the views five years ago when they represented we are concerned that net neutrality could be used as the justification into block unwanted information disseminated to citizens to think it is a bipartisan issue by hopewell was standing this doesn't apply to the future spent just for the sake of the record could resubmit the full quotation the was an excerpt by commissioner pai because that was taken out of context stomach we recognize
the gentleman from ohio. >> from the great state of ohio. >> stop at. [laughter] >> i am honored they paid tribute to ohio state today. >> this is the view to button. [laughter] my with your opening testimony with the mobile devices i cannot agree with you more i was then i t for over 30 years long before there was any such thing as the internet as we know it today and the reason we have these is because we had the and regulation by the
federal government with information services that allow the innovators so i agree with you. chairman we have requested a number of documents that have been denied under the claim of the deliberate give process privilege but for that to apply and agency must show a communication was a direct part of the delivered give process and makes recommendations to express opinions on legal or policy matters. . .
subject to the commission's ex parte rules. by the contents of those meetings memorialized in any docket at the commission? how could these conversations with the white house have been both a direct part of the deliberative process but not have been have substantial significance in that proceeding? those are questions that are rolling around in my mind. >> guest: a question for you. you you have indicated in your written testimony you received a no secret
instructions from the white house. of course secret instructions that's not the standard for determining when exporters are available in the town meetings you with the white house is my question. and attend meetings you had with the white house in advance of the fcc action on the open internet is it your opinion that only -- that that was the only meeting that addressed the merits of the commissions open internet proceeding. >> yes. >> did you say yes? >> yes. the town meetings were not meetings that were necessarily on open internet. internet. we had trade issues, national security, cyber issues. >> but in the ten meetings that came in advance of the fcc action on the open internet you are saying that there was no information or
discussions of substantial significance clearly intended to affect the ultimate decision which would require the disclosure of that information? >> there are two parts. >> that's a yes or no answer >> you correctly identified. >> is a yes or no? >> i did not get instructions in those meetings. >> am not talking about that. do they qualify? [inaudible conversations] >> how do they qualify under both? if they had discussions with the white house of the highest office in our land. have fun with the american taxpayer doesn't see that a significant and substantial. how can they not be significant and substantial clearly intended to affect the ultimate decision and
yet he denied them under a deliberative process. >> there are multiple parts. there were not instructions given. i've been on the record on that. second is -- >> that's not the determination. >> the determination is that specifically interactions with congress and the white house are excluded from ex parte and have been since 1991. going beyond that, that is a non- ex parte conversation if there was a conversation a conversation that was taking place in that kind of the construct and how even i'll even go -- >> under what basis? you can't just make that up. the losses what is required to be revealed and what is not to be revealed. the deliberative process privilege applies when you can show a direct part in
that it makes recommendations or express his opinion rather than substantial significance and clearly intended to affect the ultimate decision. i'm disagreeing with you and i think it's irresponsible the withholding information that rightfully should be openly disclosed to this committee and the american people. >> the chair now recognizes the german from new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman. before i get to my questions one follow-up there were ten meetings and we do understand there was disclosure on one. it is my understanding on the other nine their was nothing of significance discussed relative to the fcc where hundred levels of
ex parte that he should have would be required to disclose. is it true there was nothing disclosed? >> the test is -- >> i'm not asking -- [inaudible conversations] >> was there anything disclosed? >> i have no instructions. no. >> i am befuddled that in nine of the ten meetings ten meetings at the white house there was nothing of any consequence discussed relative to the fcc that would require disclosure. i we will take you at your word. one thing that we were clear about today is the importance of certainty. chairman we were struck the importance to the providers and the internet space of certainty. i can't agree more. certainty drives investment and returns.
with certainty you invest in innovation. it is pretty obvious today the way things have worked have been pretty good. the investments have been billions. as a commissioner said, maybe trillions of dollars. really the world today. we have also we have also heard unanimous agreement of the commissioners. litigation is coming and likely to take three years. guaranteed. that is not the definition of uncertainty, uncertainty, i don't know what is. for the next three years the folks looking to invest and innovate in this world have to live under the ultimate uncertainty of which court is going to rule how and when it moves. to me there is a real issue genuine issue of inconsistency with the chairman stressed the importance of certainty and then saying we're going to court.
i would like to say again lack of certainty is a wet blanket on investment. my worry is with less innovation and less investment we will someday wake up and not be the leaders in the world relative to what we think and know is probably one of the most important aspects. could you briefly comment on that? >> thank you for the question. that they not only of the private sector that the people will get the benefit. first with respect to the so-called internet conduct standard and the fcc after the vote conceded, we don't know where things go next.
the electronic frontier foundation target in this particular rule and so the problem with all this vague is that the isps nor internet users know in advance what practices will run afoul. no one knows exactly how it will work. commissioners won't have the ability to have input. when you pair the process but this internet conduct standard the entrepreneurial spirit will be funneled through this regulatory bottleneck no one we will know in advance until they get permission from washington what is allowed and what isn't. >> i could not agree more. the only thing certain is uncertainty. >> i could not agree with my colleague anymore. i was in st. louis a couple weeks ago and talked to isps
about what could happen what it would mean for the business. these are the small guys. 800 wireless isps 800 wireless isps trying to serve the most rural parts of america stringing together networks under unlicensed bands. what does this mean for me? more paperwork, paperwork compliance. you don't know what you can do for your business. they were frustrated beyond belief. >> i share your concerns and think america will. my time is up and i yield back. >> i think the gentleman from new york and our witnesses. i have heard some of the same things. they feel like they will be overwhelmed. i no the gentleman is on his way here. try to accommodate try to accommodate his questioning. >> am going to have to leave. i have to catch a flight. i don't know if that has an effect.
>> we can seek counsel on that. obviously we should try to accommodate. >> we started at 11:00 o'clock. i'm a patient person. i don't want to miss my flight. >> what time is your flight? >> i have to go out to dulles. >> as he is 1st of all because of the nature of her work that like to have prompt responses to the question. you probably have questions
or other committees as well. to the extent to which you can respond promptly that would be helpful. we would like your feedback on the draft legislation. your feedback would be most helpful. we think it's a. with that i would now recognize the gentleman from louisiana. the width of the united states house of representatives. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the commissioners being here. going to testify about their mission in this proposal that i know i have strong concerns about. i guess when you get back to
the basic question of what has worked so well with the internet and the technology community is all that somebody who graduated in computer science has worked in the technology industry i have always felt the federal government has not figured out a way to regulate and slow down. it sure you come with an answer to a problem that does not exist. heavy-handed. the fcc traditional the fcc traditional role has not been to have a heavy hand. when when you look at the proposal that is over 300 pages of regulations. this is the 1st round. everyone is looking for a free and open it is not broken. why is why is the federal government to fix it has been working incredibly well especially when you look at the role of federal regulations and what they have gone to harm our economy.
i want to ask you because you made comments about the potential taxes and fees that can come with this classification. classification. you look at section 202 of the law that gives that the to get involved for the fcc to get involved in regulating cost for the internet. if you could share with me just what kind of impact this could have on both these being able to come a higher prices that consumers will ultimately pay from this classification. >> thank you for the question. question. a multitude of fees and taxes will be lifted in a way that will ultimately get to the consumer detriment. detriment. our broadband has been classified as a telecommunications service that opens the door to billions of taxes and fees being assessed. in in addition to the line at an you see in your phone bill paying a fee on broadband what we will
happen the next several weeks or months. there are all sorts of other things that will be assessed. for example, currently broadband providers that have not been classified paid a great with equipment they attached utility poles. if you donate under section 22014. now they will have to pay a much higher rate. smaller providers in particular we will have to pay 150 to $200 million a year. you add on top of that the higher state and local property taxes at these companies will have to pay because they are not taught providers, these costs have to come from somewhere. that is one of the reasons i'm concerned. >> we have seen this time and time again. these regulations and new fees and taxes that would be paid ultimately going to be paid by consumers consumers for the people that have been enjoying the benefits of the investments. this is not this is not the
federal government. this is private investment to the tune of billions of dollars. we do this quote. there is nothing worse for investment, innovation, job creation of all things that flow from investment and business is not knowing what the rules are. >> that is as i have pointed out many times not just the private sector but the consumer did not know what will be a lot of what isn't. it is exactly in that environment with the private sector is the least likely to raise the risk of the capital raised infrastructure. i believe as you pointed out eloquently for part of the reason we enjoy the best internet experience in the is because we have had this historic bipartisan commitment of the internet would be free from state and federal regulation. >> that was chairman we were at his confirmation hearing. i want to ask you because you commented on this will
that it would negatively impact edge providers. proponents of these that neutrality regulations. he raised he raised some concerns about how they would be negatively impacted if you could comment. >> a number of people have highlighted this. under the knew definition blowing over time. the meeting today. that is going -- that is problematic as you try to figure out how to comply with the rules. rules. i believe the commission will continue to push regulations up the chain. today it's about telecommunication providers. we now are having a debate. some kind some kind of structure a deal with interconnection.
we are building right into the backbone of the internet. it only exist to edge providers overtime. >> am out of time but i appreciate your answers. >> the gentleman yields back. >> we could go five or six more rounds. [laughter] >> i want to thank our witnesses. we're all trying to do the right thing. thank you for testifying. if you can probably response are questions that would be appreciated. we look forward to your return visit. without the committee stands adjourned. >> on the next washington journal:
>> this weekend the c-span cities tour has partnered with media. >> right here inside the museum the remains of a confederate ironclad. this was an ironclad that was built here during the war. the oval shapes are actually the gun ports. the jackson is armed with six rifles. the particular rivals one of the guns built specifically for the jackson it was cast this on the naval works and completed in january of 1865. the real claim to fame is directly connected to the
fact that there are only for ironclad four ironclad the civil war that we can study right now. the jackson is right here. this is why this facility is your. first and foremost to tell the story of this particular ironclad and the show people that there are more than just one or two. >> watch all. >> watch all of our events from columbus saturday at noon eastern on c-span c-span2 and sunday afternoon at 2:00 o'clock on american history tv. >> next arizona senator john mccain reacting to comments made by illinois democrat richard durbin about loretta lynch. portion of his remarks 1st on. the fact is there is no substantive reason to stop this nomination. the republican majority leader announced over the weekend tha he
>> the republican majority leader announced over the weekend that he was going to hold this nomination of loretta lynch until the bill which is pending before the senate passes, whenever that may be. and so loretta lynch the 1st african-american woman nominated to be attorney general is asked to sit in the back of the bus when it comes to the senate calendar that is unfair. it is unjust. it is beneath that the decarlo dignity in the united states senate. this woman deserves fairness she seeks to leave the department of justice in the united states senate should be just in its treatment of her nomination. to think that we would jeopardize her opportunity to serve this nation and to make history is fundamentally unfair.
>> i come to the floor today to address a very serious accusation leveled yesterday against republican members of this body by the democratic with the senator illinois. i do with some regret -- the senator illinois and i have been friends for many years served in a house together and here in this body of work together. that is why i was so surprised and disappointed in the comments he made yesterday on the floor senate comments that are totally inappropriate to be made on the floor of the senate. my colleague illinois said and i quote from the majority leader announced that are going to hold this nomination lynch until the bill which is pending before the senate passes, whatever that may be.
then then he went on to say, and so loretta lynch the 1st african-american woman nominated to be attorney general is asked to sit in the back of the bus when it comes to this account. that is unfair unjust, and beneath the department dignity of the united states and. what is what is beneath the department dignity of the united states senate i we will say to the senator from illinois is for him to come to this floor and use that imagery and suggest that racist tactics are being employed to delay the confirmation vote. such inflammatory rhetoric has no place in this body and serves no purpose other than to further divide us. perhaps my colleague needs to be reminded of their own record when it comes to the
treatment of african-american women. in 2012 janice rogers brown and african-american was nominated to serve on the us court of appeals for the district of columbia, court that had never included african-american woman judge, senator illinois voted to filibuster her nomination in 2003 and again in 2005 when she was finally confirmed after waiting 684 days. the senator illinois voted against the historic nomination. i would never suggest even with failed rhetoric that judge rogers brown race was the reason for the senator from illinois opposition to her nomination. he should extend i say to my colleague from illinois he should extend that same courtesy to me and my
colleagues. i i would like to remind the senator illinois about how we were able to fill vacancies last year effectively alleviating a judicial emergency with tremendous bipartisan support in the nomination of two senators we confirmed a diverse and historic slate of six nominees which included a hispanic, and african-american and the 1st native american woman ever to serve on the federal bench. .. confirmations, just as ms. lynch's race should have no impact on her consideration in this body. those six judges were approved by this body because each of them had shown a commitment to justice, public service and the people of arizona. each also had demonstrated the judicial temperament and professional demeanor necessary to serve with integrity. i further point out to the senator from illinois that at no time as the majority leader
ever indicated that he would not bring the lynch nomination to the floor. in fact the opposite is true. we made it very clear time and again that we will consider the lynch nomination once we have disposed of the bipartisan trafficking bill. had the senator from illinois and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle not filibustered this bill over a manufactured crisis we could have considered the lynch nomination this week. they chose otherwise. i deeply regret that the senator from illinois chose to c >> >> to question in the motivation it was offensive end unnecessary he owes this body end this lynch and all americans and apology. i yield the floor. >> mr. president i'm glad i
heard my colleague's comments first hand and a leg to respond directly. as of today lauretta lynch who was the president's nominee for attorney general has had her nomination pending before this senate 131 days. how does that compare to previous nominees with attorney general? it is three times longer than ashcroft was pending. two 1/2 times longer -- as the case under twice as long as attorney-general holder. why? in some cases the nominees have questions that were raised by members of the senate, questions about political views views, backgrounder legitimate questions that
require timely and answer. i said in the hearing for this nominee there were no questions raised of any nature. of any kind. questioning her ability to serve as attorney general. nine. when my colleague from arizona and though it's a fact i have voted against african-american women comedies in the past it is true and i am not arguing every member of the senate should vote for loretta lynch simply because she would be the first fifth african-american woman to serve in that capacity i am just saying she deserves the same fair treatment we have given to other nominees for this job. she has been pending before the senate longer than any nominee in the last 30 years. she has been on the calendar
waiting for a vote cop for a vote in the last five nominees combined. why? has nothing to do with her qualifications for the job which are the very best. why in the world are we taking this important post attorney general of the united states of america taking this moment with the first african-american woman in history is given the opportunity to serve too entangled in the politics of the senate? one week ago the majority leader said outside this chamber he would call for her nomination this week to be breached a sigh of relief and over the weekend he announced she would not be called and tell a bill
pending on the floor is passed. i am upset and frustrated on her behalf to think she is being treated in this manner. i will not use any pejorative terms of turning into say i thinking it is insensitive for the senate to hold directors such a lengthy period of time with no objection to her character or fitness or ability to serve the united states for cover she has served she is currently in a position as the u.s. attorney in new york, she has the support of the following organizations organizations, national district attorneys association, a federal law-enforcement officers association, the international association of chiefs of police, a major city chief association, an association of prosecuting
attorneys, the fbi and though long list of republican and democratic appointed attorneys even fitzgerald from my own state she has the support of former fbi director and former director general from the george of the bush administration. under ordinary circumstances this would be easy to bring a person of this quality to the senate for confirmation. she had three votes supporting her. i don't understand the objections of the others although i respect their reasoning although we are asking for the president or the senate is asking for a vote to bring her off the pages of the calendar for a
vote don't make it contingent on the bill or a political agreement in the future let this woman who has led an extraordinary life have her chance to continue to serve united states of america and it is only fair and just keeping with the traditions of the senate. i yield the floor. it happens here closer than you think. i wanted to talk about a separate topic today as well and it is o a >> i want to talk about a topic that a lot of people are reading about over the last 72 years and was an election in israel people wonder what is this aftermath that we read about with the controversy back and forth for when the prime minister visited washington
in spoke before the congress? why is there controversy? i want to delve deeper but first why should we care what is happening with in about israel? two reasons. here represents everything we want that region of the role to be a is a democracy it is a free enterprise economy that provides prosperity for its people and partners in trade and it is a strong american ally and a democracy don't we wish the entire middle east looks like that for those allies our democratic to have a free and prosperous economy? so much better with the middle east be filled looked more like israel or less like iran or syria at this
moment? there is another reason it is a just another country ever is counted as a homeland for the jewish people after the second world war in the holocaust. after 6 million human beings were slaughtered founded on the promise never again will there not be a place with the jewish people to be safe and not just a nation but a special purpose unlike any other nation and i am proud united states has stood with israel for all these years i am proud of the american people have stood behind the jewish state of israel for all of the shares. sarah security safety and future is international security as well as the moral obligation whether the underpinnings? first is the ability of
israel to defend itself in second the reality if it ever has to the united states will be there to support them. there is little doubt about the first as a prime minister reminded us i'd like other countries they're not asking us to send americans to support them they can defend themselves but the second pillar of support is increasingly questioned around the world. and there's good reason why. let's begin by the aftermath of the recent election the president has yet to call the prime minister. that's is unlike effect in march 2012 he was among the first to congratulate putin in moscow or june 2012 he was the first to call morsi from the muslim brotherhood when they won or november
november 2012 called to congratulate the top chinese communist by the way that is an election -- not election. or in 2013, he called the iranian president to congratulate him on his election and then of course, he calls the turkish president and on and on time and again he makes a habit to quickly call leaders but as the 4:40 p.m. eastern time that call has not yet been made. thinking of all the things you did think he would be quick to make that call. is this something that just happened recently? you can start to see the trend early. october 2008 senator obama held an audience in cleveland with the
pro-israel community that says that unless you adopt the approach this new anti-israeli which is a silly comment to make because at that time that party was out of power. january 2009 upon taking office the presence makes the quick phone call to the palestinian authority before he even phoned israeli prime minister this is my first for a call to a foreign leader of the hours after i took office. june 2009 the president opposed american jewish leaders at the white house reportedly told them he saw the daylight between america and israel. someone said he said eight years during the bush administration there is no
light between the united states and israel and nothing got accomplished. september 2009 to his first address to the u.n. general assembly he quoted five paragraphs about the conflict that he said america does not accept the legitimacy of continued israeli settlement and he drew a connection between rocket attack on israeli civilians with living conditions in the gaza. not a single unconditional issue of palestinian terrorism. march 2010 secretary of state clinton berated prime minister netanyahu and a 45 minute call telling him israel had harmed the bilateral relationship by the way the state department tripoli share parts of the call then he was dressed down at the state department
in the middle east envoy cancel the trip to israel and the united states join the european condemnation of israel than in 2011 the state department issued a press release saying the number two official would visit israel and jerusalem but it is not part of israel that is less separate. only hours before mr. netanyahu departed to washington obama and deliver the era of spring speech focusing on the demand is real return to the pre-1967 borders. november 2011 in an open microphone the conversation with the president and french presidents are cozy who said i cannot stand netanyahu he is a lighter but the president said you were tired of him? what about me?
i have to deal with him every day. february 2012 that a conference secretary of state clinton was asked about mr. obama pandering to though lobbyist and she acknowledged that was a fair question is put on to explain during election system and their comments made it to reflect policy. the state department and white house criticized israel for the deaths of palestinians ever used as human shields by her loss but far worse was the president's feelings was a decision to give arms supplies to israel as a pressure point against israel. october 2014 and anonymous officials called prime minister netanyahu a chicken , i cannot even finish, that is what has
happened even up to this point. what happened to now? in the election just happened the first in the white house says there is a lot if language in this election that is a lot from someone was elected twice with extremely divisive language but in 2009 the people took to the streets to protest the white house said we will not comment because we will not interfere with the sovereignty of firebrand so they will comment on the elections of the allied but when the enemy have a fraudulent election and kills people the protest we cannot comment? because that infringes on there sovereignty. the prime minister made a statement of a two-state solution is impossible under
the current circumstances the warehouses and that means we may have to reconsider to go to the united nations security council to support the resolution that does not mean the veto authority calling on a palestinian state so why would the prime minister of israel say that? the conditions don't exist because first of all goes to the history of peace negotiations. camp david in 2000 palestinian offer until palestinian authority eastern jerusalem and almost all of the west bank and they said no. in 2000 they get with troop in date now have a place with the launch rockets into israel. hi again they offered the palestinian authority nearly all of the west bank in
eastern jerusalem the palestinian authority said no. what about the palestinian record? about 6% of the budget is diverted to pay the salary of prisoners of terrorist with killed civilians including americans and they are paid salaries and benefits including money from donors from the united states great britain and norway and denmark also to routinely be depicted from a palestinian school but palestine war ended with a catastrophe that is unprecedented when they sold palestine to establish the state of israel. what about this expression is that appeared in the daily as far back as 1998. >> the difference between hitler and the minister was
simple hiller did not have colonies so he destroy them but he sent the jews. naboth wanted to get rid of the jurors -- the jews zionism was crucial to get rid of them these are the people that they're pressuring to cut a piece deal with. the palestinian authority has named areas after terrorist for killing israeli civilians. this opinion piece that appears in "the new york times" 2013 powless and authority radio station in summer camps children's magazines are being used to drive home messages that the existence of the jewish
state is a legitimate there is no jewish people are too rich history that the jews are horrible creatures that corrupt the palestinians must look at the inevitable placement from the palestine state in all forms of resistance are valid even though some forms of violence are not expedia the next generation is fed a rhetorical by it the demonization of jews in the conviction that sooner or later israel will cease to exist these are the people of that he wants to cut a piece deal with. i think netanyahu is right the conditions do not garner wright the conditions for peace to not exist not the people the people are victims of the government of the palestinian authority not to mention her boss.
to teach people that is a glorious thing there is no such thing as a jewish people in any method is to destroy them as valid they pay salaries and benefits. this president is making a historic mistake. allies like israel would you have a difference that publicly emboldens their enemies the one she is more terrorist attacks to go to international forums to delegitimize this is what they are doing and is a historic and tragic mistake. if this is a republican president i would give the exact same speech in fact i would be angrier. this is outrageous and irresponsible and betrays the commitment the nation has made for the right of the jewish state to exist in peace. nobody wants peace more than the people of israel though people have suffered more
than the people of israel and they need america's support unconditionally. if there are differences is then you do with them privately like other allies than they deserve to be treated with respect not less than this white house is giving the supreme leader of iran he would not say those things now that he says another prime minister of israel because he doesn't want that dangerous arms peace deal he works out for them but i hope he will reconsider and the bipartisan nature is reinvigorated once again this government will recommit itself to the relationship because of america doesn't stand with israel who do we stand with? if israel a democracy a strong ally is not worthy of our unconditional support and what allied of farmers
can feel safe with our alliance? i yield the floor. >> mr. president. >> the senator from arkansas >> today's ago prime minister netanyahu party-line a victory in the election i went to offer a hearty congratulations to prime minister netanyahu i have great vision for his courageous statesmanship as well as a service for his country's of the special operations forces is. prime minister netanyahu and
his family have paid the highest price in the fight of a common enemy of israel and the united states. get let me stress the alliance between the united states and israel is not an alliance with the israeli statesman or the political party or which party controls the white house rather between the american people and the israeli people. between the ultimate defender of the west and the eastern most frontier our alliance is under shared experiences and principals are crashing in judeo heritage respect the rights of mankind marketplace to economics. israel's commitment demonstrated this week is an important distinction for many neighbors why they're
the closest ally in the region. apparently he harbors such a in virtue of the prime minister that his antagonism from prime mr. netanyahu is longstanding last year anonymous officials used a vulgar epitaph to question his courage are all pointed out that anonymity is a shield as i'm compelled 2.0 so far as i know neither the president nor his aides have served in our countries of the special operations forces of lake president netanyahu. in the last 48 hours, or anonymous officials have suggested a fundamental rethinking of the alliance with a statement that there
would be no palestinian state mental conditions change. the authority must have a minimum ejecta moss from the coalition to retain control of the gaza strip to demilitarize the border and recognize israel's right to exist as the prime minister said as palestinians laid down their arms there will be peace but if israel phasedown their arms and repaid over israel. the obamacare administration has gone off the deep end with personal bitterness drive public foreign policy to the closest ally. suggesting a fundamental change with a relationship and a willingness to abandon its united nations. one official said we are signaling it is the position space under to pursue safe we will look of options clearing forward according
to the same officials if u.s. has criticized activities to demand withdrawal from part palestinians territories. another official said our position is to support negotiations with israelis and palestinians were now they no longer support direct negotiations so riddled with that factor into our decisions coming forward. the state department spokeswoman said we're currently evaluating our approach and we will not challenge what we will do. some observers will dismiss the comment of the political operatives who did not get their way but there is something much more worrisome underway. while prime minister netanyahu and decisive
victory he adjusted to assemble a majority coalition. these folks can very well start of the smaller parties currently is in depreciations but raises the question in the administration intends to undermine the prime minister's efforts to adjust a call the shed with a longstanding policy with the innovations. after all of you with the elected leader and israel you would worry about the united states refusing to exercise the veto that u.n. security council. considered the history of anti-semitism in the rights can also condemned israel and 45 resolutions since its creation and in 2013 u.n. general assembly adopted 21 resolutions tousing beloeil israel and four resolutions
for the rest of the world. 50% of all of urgency special sessions were convened to denounce israel freed while no emergency special session has been called trivia their state in over 30 years. given its history i will speak bluntly so there is no misunderstanding. under no circumstances will ayer this congress allowed the aba administration to abandon israel to the united asian tour in the other international institutions and choose change the terms of our alliance with israel the al latest pronouncement is more difficult to understand with the terrorist regime in iran. the people should know the american people remain in solidarity with them to exist peacefully with their neighbors we will not allow them to be thrown to the united nations a characterization made famous
by a past member of the body the late patrick moynihan. i call on all members of the body to join in the with one voice to support our allies israel against the jackals. perhaps after the budget resolution today i will propose legislation in the reaffirms the policy of the disease to defend against attacks of other international agencies and their urge all members of the body include a my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who support israel to join me to support legislation. should the united nations insubordinate agency or the international criminal court or any other take adverse action there will consider introducing legislation to restrict funding for the offending agency. finally if the ambassador to
the united nations does not exercise the veto against in tight -- and the entire resolution i will introduce similar legislation to restrict funding to the ambassador's office. for decade the of this is shipping to israel and united states is over political and personal differences if to interests where enough to overcome ideology your personal disagreements but mutual respect is of little concern the president officials around him should carefully consider a diplomatic and security consequences. this congress certainly will.
is one of the guns spilt blood dash built specifically for jackson and was cast in southern alabama and completed january 1865. their real claim to fame is directly connected to the fact there are only four ironclads that we can study right now and jackson is right here in by this facility is your. first and foremost to tell the story of this ironclad there is more than just one or two. there are many.
spin that we should not be surprised by that you cannot undo decades of stuff with eight years especially when you taught them to have u.s. of pfizer's in partners. afghanistan according to the president's announcement three currently have 10,000 troops sped we are drawing of 5,000 next year the animals to zero after that of a war we will see a similar missile like iraq when isis' attacked afghan army will be shaking without u.s. help
[inaudible conversations] the committee will come to order their authorized to declare a recess headed the time for the purpose of receiving the secretary of treasury and will report to the international finance system and i recognize myself for three minutes for an opening statement with a larger system with the greatest threat could only be seen and of course, it is a realtime national debt clock and we have more data
in the last six years and in the first 200. by laptop is awash with private reports calling a level of debt totally unsustainable in disappointingly the secretaries prepared testimony contains very overt about the threat of the a sustainable national debt to our economy in fairness the obama administration is on a loan to help put a nation into insolvency europe has a number as well. since the major funding is u.s. taxpayers. to clearly see that debt crisis to dash london institutionalized and a
global scale. of the activities of the imf as a carefully scrutinized with the teetwenty financial stability board the oversight council. to operate transparency accountability as part of a shuttle regulatory system. now the witness heads up the fsoc and now we are a member of fsb. fsoc is concerning since it takes direction from the fsb financial stability board a secretive unaccountable coalition of a bureaucrat's that is the conduit to export the views on regulations to the united states since as one size fits all typically to do
more harm than a good bill is not imported from europe we tried that with basliii and we know where that got the best but yet fsoc has rubber-stamp decisions made by the international board when it comes to deciding whether a large u.s. non-bank financial institutions should be designated as too big to fail. this does not appear to be a coordination but capitulation since tomorrow is the taxpayer bend bailout it is a consequence for the american people that will undoubtedly harm american innovation and the american economic growth a can impinge on sovereignty to bypass the check and balance of the united states congress even more power and
the americans will find themselves paying more to insure their homes and families and investors to rely on funds for college education or retirement will find less than the small businesses on main street will suffer as capital begins to drive up. we must not allow this to happen in nine now yield three minutes to the breaking member for an opening statement. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. apply to welcome mr. secretary after attempts by the obama administration in to win congressional approval for the imf may have to recognize a new reality. reforms supported by both republican and democratic administrations with them a veto power to lose two seats on an executive board that
was open and shut the those congressional republicans don't agree and argue it would put more taxpayer dollar at risk kleagle that both the wrong and what they would retain its a share would be fully upset resulting in a new cost to the taxpayers but the real press is continued congressional inaction in fact flashier the teetwenty group issued the ultimatum to the u.s. to approve the deal by year's cent were will weigh options to move forward without the u.s. the imf borden began to study the options.
with the weakening commitment with the global economic issues. in response a number of developing countries led by china has begun to act independently to challenge western dominance last year the bric nations announce the shanghai development bank said they hope will apply full the world bank. sold to rival the development bank that countries such as china and russia are increasingly acting aside the establishment effective go beyond control that is some
of the reasons republicans have stated they are not supporting the imf for those consequences but the more immediate question the felicitate within the imf had a time it allows a fundamental government with the institution of afford to carry more from you and with what is at stake and i yield back the balance of my time spirit the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan for two minutes. >> thank you. secretary lew welcome back. and as the commissioner on services has pointed out with the regulatory environment to a growth agenda as was noted it has rightly points out we have
to have that courage to make changes where we see those are necessary but for a specific concern that applies to the imf in 2009 did authorize $100 billion commitment in the cabinet called the new arrangements with the past five years the administration has requested 63 billion to be transferred to a permanent pay capital account to be bailout the european countries that are in debt like greece. like to explore why shed hard-working taxpayer dollars be used to bail and other countries especially after suffering from a bailout fatigue literal backyard with fha and fannie and freddie and shouldn't we focus on encouraging the countries to better manage their borrowing and spending? it is stated according to a memo from 2010 and that went
to "the wall street journal" that clearly stated the program is the bailout of bondholders and rather than require private sector creditors i am concerned the administration chose to bail out the european banks representatives from several other nations including coastal and kid a warrant the yellow package had an immense risks despite that the administration in chose to support the bailout how do we know this? not because of transparency but information is when the five year-old memo was leaked it is of lack of transparency and it is my goal to change that. finocchio. >> we recognize the
gentlelady from wisconsin for two minutes. >> top of the morning teeeighteen. welcome back. there are many international issues that are outstanding credit of -- but it must we good to sit here with the private sector growth with 2.8 million since the 1997 and i think your stewardship with the debt ceiling debate puts us in a good position to have united states be the world's reserve currency that i think is important here is up question to raise with chair janet yellen that i know treasury takes an aggressive stance the w-2
punish bank employees with the tax avoidance in money-laundering scheme but also i'd like you to do double down to the more surgical the death heard from my own constituents the relatives are literally starving. and i have also heard from insurers that they are increasingly concerned about ongoing international negotiations on standards to impact insurers. i hope your strong voice but i am also concerned about the imf.
and so may agree with you on that. >> we will come the testimony of the secretary lew secretary of treasury that has been before this committee for several previous occasions i don't think it's a formal introduction. your reinstatement will be made part of the record you are now recognized teeeighteen for five minutes to give a summary of your testimony. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. is the united states economy continues to make progress by only every of the rhetoric we have come a long way since the depression. last year we saw a job growth in government next five years businesses have created 12 million new jobs
the month is stretched its history. read the same time our economy keeps expanding and forecast projects growth for this year. for american exporters set another record and the fiscal deficit that has fallen by almost three-quarters has fallen even further. to under stu like a underscore with the right policies the international fine mitchell institutions that includes the imf of multilateral banks are part of the effort our investments are some of the most cost-effective ways to reinforce the growth at home. but it is essential that congress and it will put the
finding of suicide more stable footing to help modernize the governance structure begin within the imf did to more broadly as the imf institution in progress to wait for congress to approve these reforms emerging economies are looking to other alternatives as a means to drive the global system for word. our continued failure causes of their countries including our allies to question our commitment to the multilateral institutions that we work so hard to create. and tell these reforms are in place today is states runs the risk to see their preeminent role eroded especially if others are establishing new and parallel financial institutions. of the fact is the imf reforms will help convince him urging companies to remain anchored in assistant
united states helped to design and it is a win-win for the united states. day of trade our bidault power in do not change your commitment. berndt fed is why we want to get these reforms passed as soon as possible for the imf role to produce security agent with the technical support the did needs is the cornerstone and did extraordinary circumstances and a recently approved a longer-term program to allow ukraine to pursue the same set of reforms. to regional development bank is key to a fancying to a strategic interest. my full statement i submitted for the record plays out in detail how they grow the expert market to
increase opportunities to create jobs in the united states to protect our national security. but let me highlight a few of the areas where these institutions have the fiesta our priorities. to stabilize the country of $5 billion in central america there were to help of an address the causes of children on the border and in africa and they have taken action of health systems agent to be sure if this is promoting food security or natural disaster preparedness they're making a difference. it is no surprise to the nation's history democratic republican presidents have made it a priority to invest in these institutions and dash you can see from the
budget request we're using a we have learned to to launch a well-designed cost-effective funded that enables the poorest countries to build resilience to cut pollution and globally evincing a our development objectives. in closing the world is looking to united states for leadership and is essential was an effort to demonstrate that across all international financial institutions i look forward to working with all of you to make that happen i will be glad to answer any questions you may have. >> mr. secretary we have a number of concerns about exactly where fsoc is an
entity here headed in pre-have spoken before about financial stability board you have said previously it is a group that acts like a consensus most recently it has initiated a good new total losses were being capacity standard so can i assume since attacks like the consensus in hutcheson new standards? america would say it pushes to be adopted it is preliminary steps. >> so as you know, fsb after creating the standards issued the exemption to three at of the largest
banks in the world three chinese banks one is the largest in the world with over 3 trillion in assets. so of the u.s. can send it to those standards is the treasury consent to the exemption of those banks? >> those provisions are preliminary that require additional action to be implemented. >> guy vander stand that. you don't know the answer? >> fsb acts by consensus i'm not familiar with the specific nature of that action that you are describing. >> but if you would get back it is reported in the press
already that the three chinese banks are exempt it is just curious to me that if the works by consensus in treasury is a member that it would god have consented never the you get back to me >>, like to render scorer to require implementation to be put forward that would strengthen the financial stability. >> then i guess it is curious in your last appearance before the committee that the fsb does not make rules for any of the national governments
every one has its own vulnerability to make decisions for itself so as these are preliminary suggestions and not rule so why is it the fsb found unnecessary to grant exemptions to the chinese? the fsb raises the standards to a high-level rework to get those kinds of standards and we think are appropriate to be adopted around the world. >> gets back to me and the specific issue. >> i'm sorry but my time is up. >> i was going to answer your question. >> i have been waiting several minutes for you said you did not know. >> the design of the preliminary approach is if
we go forward. >> but it had to do with the exemptions. that is the question. to recently issued a memo last month where he declared he expected full consistent with the fsb reforms then went on to say it would support the efforts through enhanced monitoring of the implementation across all jurisdictions we will report the findings through the teetwenty see you have stated that fsb does not impose rules however in following care of the attitude designate the non-bank issue it sounds
like a fait accompli so did treasury consent to this memo? you aware from the chairman of the financial stability board? >> that effort is something that we have been driving for rye was personally engaged so with those still preserves the taxpayers and held accountable. >> are you aware of the memo i just quoted? >> i have read a lot of memos from 63 1/2 to look at the specific amount -- memo.
>> you're recognized for five minutes. >> first of word about the world bank. in with the safeguards we knew which would result in the revised policy and welcome your statement you were card to strengthen the protection by the policies so proposed by bank management you have your work cut out for you for the bank's credibility takes a hard hit to broaden and strengthen those policies. with the unregulated were engaged credit often times